Opponent process theory

Koob, George F., Louis Stinus, Michel Le Moal, and Floyd E. Bloom. 1989a. "Opponent Process Theory of Motivation Neurobiological Evidence from Studies of Opiate Dependence." Neuroscience and Biobehaviorat Reviews 13 135-40. 

Solomon, Richard L. 1980. "The Opponent Process Theory of Acquired Motivation." American Psychologist 35 691-712. 

Solomon, Richard L., and John D. Corbit. 1974. "An Opponent-Process Theory of Motivation I. Temporal Dynamics of Affect." Psychological Review 81 119-45. 

Solomon, R. (1980) The opponent-process theory of acquired motivation, American Journal of Psychology 35,691-712. 

Early theories, by referring to opiate addiction as a model, placed major emphasis on physical dependence as a factor of drug addiction (Himmelsbach, 1943). More recent formulations, apart from providing a theory for the mechanism of tolerance and dependence (opponent process theory) (Solomon, 1977), have moved the emphasis from... 

Koob GF, Stinus L, Le Moal M, Bloom FE (1989) Opponent process theory of motivation neurobiological evidence from studies of opiate dependence. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 75 135-140. 

Solomon RL (1977) An opponent-process theory of motivation IV. The affective dynamics of addiction. In Maser JD, Seligman MEP (Eds), Psychopathology Experimental Models, Freeman, San Francisco. 

One more aspect of compensatory reactions is that with repeated use of a given dose of a drug, they are thought to become stronger. You can see that we have the makings of an explanation of tolerance here, one that was made prominent over 30 years ago by two psychologists, Richard Solomon and John Corbit, when they published their opponent process theory of motivation (Solomon Corbit, 1974). 

Solomon, R. L., 8c Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119-145. 

Hurvich, L. and D. Jameson. 1957. An opponent-process theory of color vision. Psychol. Rev. 64, 384-404. 

Another paradigm case of a B mechanism is the "opponent-process system" stipulated by Richard L. Solomon. According to his theory, the onset or termination of an initial experience of pleasure or pain generates an oppositely signed experience of pain or pleasure.23 Euphoria and withdrawal in drug addiction illustrate the pleasure-pain sequence. The pain-pleasure sequence is illustrated by the relief a woman experiences upon learning that her fear of cancer was ungrounded. (See Fig. 1.2 in section 1.8 for illustrations.)... 

Opponents of the nuclear winter theory argue that there are many problems with the hypothesized scenarios either because of the model s incorrect assumptions (e.g., the results would be right only if exactly the assumed amount of dust would enter the atmosphere, or because the model assumes uniformly distributed, constantly injected particles). Other critics of the nuclear winter scenario point out that the models used often to not include processes and/or feedback mechanisms that may moderate or mitigate the initial effects of nuclear blasts on the atmosphere (e.g., the moderating effects of the oceans). 

There was a lively discussion during many years between supporters and opponents of the first two theories, but the analysis of recent time literature shows that, depending on the conditions, both processes and their combinations are possible in real flotation processes. 

Unfortunately, it is impossible to design an experiment that will totally disprove a theory based on random phenomena. Various outcomes may occur, some of which may be unlikely but not impossible. Thus, Popper s falsifiability condition does not hold. The statistical method advocated by Fisher (1973) attempts to overcome this problem by substituting unlikely for impossible , but otherwise follows the scientific process described above. This substitution raises a host of conceptual issues beyond the scope of this discussion, except to say that this approach has its opponents and is not accepted by all statisticians. 

Melucci (1996) describes collective identity in terms of a process. In that collective identity is not a static given, but is rather produced, Melucci s notion of collective action, collective identity with action and field (the how and where of social movements), works well with the elements of Foucauldian theory that I have outlined. Collective action is inseparable from the production of the meaning of collective identity there is a relational reciprocity between actor and system. Action, constructed by social relationships within a system of constraints and opportunities, works on and through ends, means and fields. Melucci s field represents the environment or terrain and this resonates with Foucault s notion of discursive field. Movements delineate themselves from their opponents We are for You, the You that You are for Us (Melucci, 1996 48). 

The clause, also part of British and French patent systems, mandated that a patent filed by a non-citizen must be in use within a specified time—usually one or two years—or the patent becomes void, leaving the product or process open to exploitation by others. See comments by Arthur Prill and by I. F. Stone, in Symposium on American Dye Industry, JIEC 6 (November 1914) 945, 949 Edward Gudeman, Aspects of Some Chemical Industries, in the United States, Today, JIEC 1 (February 1915) 152. Opponents suggested the clause worked in neither theory nor practice with regard to the... 

---